Go-Bangayan v. Bangayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Benjamin Bangayan, Jr. (Benjamin) filed a petition for declaration of a non-existent marriage and/or nullity of marriage against Sally Go-Bangayan (Sally). Benjamin alleged that he was validly married to Azucena Alegre in 1973, with whom he had three children. In 1982, Benjamin and Sally entered into a purported marriage contract, despite Benjamin's subsisting marriage. This union produced two children, Bernice and Bentley. During their cohabitation, Benjamin and Sally acquired several real properties. The relationship ended in 1994 when Sally left for Canada. Subsequently, Sally filed criminal charges for bigamy and falsification against Benjamin, using their purported marriage contract as evidence. Procedural History: Benjamin initiated the case by filing a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 43, seeking a declaration of non-existent marriage and/or nullity of marriage, partition of properties acquired with Sally under Article 148 of the Family Code, and declaration of their children as illegitimate. Sally filed a demurrer to evidence, which the RTC denied. Sally's subsequent motion for reconsideration and petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) were also denied. Despite repeated opportunities and warnings, Sally refused to present evidence before the RTC, leading the court to consider the case submitted for decision. The RTC ruled in favor of Benjamin, declaring the marriage void ab initio and non-existent, and making specific rulings on the partition of properties. Sally appealed to the CA, which partly granted the appeal, modifying the property division but affirming the trial court's findings on the nullity of the marriage and the waiver of the right to present evidence. Sally's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. The Petition: Sally Go-Bangayan filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The petition raises three main issues: (1) whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court's ruling that Sally waived her right to present evidence; (2) whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court's decision declaring the marriage between Benjamin and Sally null and void ab initio and non-existent; and (3) whether the CA erred in affirming with modification the trial court's decision regarding the property relations of Benjamin and Sally. Sally argues that the trial court's refusal to allow her to present evidence deprived her of her right to prove her marriage to Benjamin and that the lower courts erred in their findings regarding the validity of the marriage and the division of properties.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the trial court’s ruling that Sally had waived her right to present evidence. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the trial court’s decision declaring the marriage between Benjamin and Sally null and void ab initio and non-existent. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming with modification the trial court’s decision regarding the property relations of Benjamin and Sally.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the declaration that the marriage between Benjamin and Sally was null and void ab initio and non-existent. The Court also affirmed the modified ruling on the property relations between Benjamin and Sally, governed by Article 148 of the Family Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the waiver of the right to present evidence: The Court held that the grant of a motion for continuance is discretionary. Sally's numerous requests for postponement, despite warnings from the trial court, constituted a waiver of her right to present evidence. Her insistence on presenting Benjamin, who was not subpoenaed, and her refusal to present other witnesses, demonstrated a lack of interest and a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. The trial court's duty to ensure the case proceeds despite a party's deliberate delay justified submitting the case for decision. On the validity of the marriage between Benjamin and Sally: The Court affirmed the trial court's and Court of Appeals' findings that the marriage was void ab initio and non-existent. Benjamin's prior valid marriage to Azucena was established. Crucially, no valid marriage license was issued to Benjamin and Sally, as confirmed by the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City. The purported marriage contract was signed without a license and was not registered. Therefore, the marriage was void under Article 35 of the Family Code for lack of a marriage license and inexistent under Article 1409 of the Civil Code for being simulated or fictitious. The Court clarified that the marriage was not bigamous because the second marriage was void from the beginning due to the lack of a marriage license, not merely due to the subsistence of the first marriage. On the property relations between Benjamin and Sally: The Court ruled that their property relations were governed by Article 148 of the Family Code, as they cohabited without the benefit of marriage. Only properties acquired through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are owned in common. The 37 properties claimed by Sally, which were advance inheritances from Benjamin's father, were correctly excluded. Regarding the other properties, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' modified ruling, which clarified the exclusive ownership of Benjamin for some properties, exclusive ownership of Sally for others, and common ownership for one property (TCT No. 61722) to be shared equally, with Benjamin's share accruing to his conjugal partnership with Azucena and Sally's share accruing to her. The Court reiterated that the phrase "married to" preceding a spouse's name on a title is merely descriptive and does not prove co-ownership.
Main Doctrine
A marriage solemnized without a marriage license is void from the beginning (void ab initio) under Article 35 of the Family Code. Furthermore, a simulated or fictitious marriage is inexistent and void from the beginning under Article 1409 of the Civil Code. In cases of cohabitation not falling under Article 147 of the Family Code, only properties acquired through actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry are owned in common, governed by Article 148 of the Family Code.